Could be right, Gizo. On top of my head Laver's clay titles since 68:
French Pro 1968, maybe Buenos Aires and some minor titles in South America, he won in 68, were also on clay, but that is not absolutely sure, French Open 69, Canadian Open 70, Louisville 70, Rome 71, Houston 72, Houston 74, maybe Tokyo 74 (which was a clay like surface made out of rubberized gravel; he beat Borg in sf and Gisbert in the final, who was a Spanish clay specialist), Caracas 75 (was clay or hard). He won also 8 and 4 man events at Hilton Head in green clay a couple of times. He was also ru at French Open 68, at Argentine Open 68, at Spanish Open 70 (played in late October in between indoor circuit).

An excellent post from you as per usual Urban
I have to admit that I had no idea which of his open era titles were on clay apart from the French Pro in 1968, the French Open in 1969 and the Italian Open in 1971, so thanks for that informative summary.
It was also remarkable that at the age of 35 he beat Borg on clay in that Houston final in 1974, only 5 or 6 weeks before Borg won the Italian Open and French Open titles, and then gave Borg a tough match on the har-tru at Forest Hills a year later.

I thought Lendl on grass, because most people count he never won Wimbledon, but he went deep many, many times. Also I consider Edberg on hard courts, because he played solid there, though most people think of him on grass serving and volleying excellently.

Laver was nothing special on red clay. His one French Open was a gargantuan feat.

Don't you mean, two French Opens? He did, after all, win two Grand Slams. Regardless, if 'nothing special' means good enough to win two French Open titles then I'll happily take that every day of the week.

Quite simply put: the GREATEST player on his weakest surface would have to be someone who was actually great enough to WIN a major tournament (French, Aus, US, Wimbledon) on his weakest surface. The records of Lendl (who also made the Aus Open final and semi-final on grass), Agassi and Federer on their worst surface is exceptionally good but, to date, only Agassi has managed to win a major on it.

Rod Laver is, naturally, my pick. However, I would also throw up the name of Ken Rosewall as an obvious inclusion. Wimbledon grass was his worst surface (grass differs from one nation to another) but he still made the final 5 times. Note that, of those 5 times, 3 were before the age of 23 and 2 were after the age of 35. If he'd been able to play during his prime years (or any time between the ages of 23 and 33) there is no doubt he'd have won Wimbledon at least once.

Don't you mean, two French Opens? He did, after all, win two Grand Slams. Regardless, if 'nothing special' means good enough to win two French Open titles then I'll happily take that every day of the week.

Quite simply put: the GREATEST player on his weakest surface would have to be someone who was actually great enough to WIN a major tournament (French, Aus, US, Wimbledon) on his weakest surface. The records of Lendl (who also made the Aus Open final and semi-final on grass), Agassi and Federer on their worst surface is exceptionally good but, to date, only Agassi has managed to win a major on it.

Rod Laver is, naturally, my pick. However, I would also throw up the name of Ken Rosewall as an obvious inclusion. Wimbledon grass was his worst surface (grass differs from one nation to another) but he still made the final 5 times. Note that, of those 5 times, 3 were before the age of 23 and 2 were after the age of 35. If he'd been able to play during his prime years (or any time between the ages of 23 and 33) there is no doubt he'd have won Wimbledon at least once.

I didn't count the first one as it was against amateurs. But for accuracy's sake Laver does have two French Opens.

Again, my comment was poorly phrased. From my viewings I found Laver unorthodox on red clay and nowhere close to Rosewall's league.

how come sampras is not here?
clay maybe his weakest surface but at least he got a descent record there..

You have to be kidding. Sampras on a poll for best player on their weakest surface. There is zero argument for Sampras being the slighest bit better on clay then Federer on clay, Lendl on grass, Borg on hard courts, Laver on clay, Connors on clay, McEnroe on clay, Agassi on either grass or clay. He would be a completely worthless option in a poll like this, no disrespect to Pete but that is just being honest.

I didn't count the first one as it was against amateurs. But for accuracy's sake Laver does have two French Opens.

Again, my comment was poorly phrased. From my viewings I found Laver unorthodox on red clay and nowhere close to Rosewall's league.

For accuracy's sake, WTF? Laver won two FO titles: deal with it.

Your comment must have been one of the most poorly phrased I've ever read because you didn't mention Rosewall at all and made absolutely no comment on Laver's style but now you're saying that's what you were really talking about. In what language?

You have to be kidding. Sampras on a poll for best player on their weakest surface. There is zero argument for Sampras being the slighest bit better on clay then Federer on clay, Lendl on grass, Borg on hard courts, Laver on clay, Connors on clay, McEnroe on clay, Agassi on either grass or clay. He would be a completely worthless option in a poll like this, no disrespect to Pete but that is just being honest.

Pete did at least win the Italian Open, which to me, is historically the 2nd most prestigious clay court tournament. But what really hurts him is that he never made it beyond the semis in Paris.

Laver won several big titles on clay, including the French. Connors won a US Open on clay, and even though he's one of my least favorite players, I wish that he had gotten the chance to play the 1974 French. McEnroe was just a few games from winning the French. Borg was a 2 time Open r/u on hard courts and wasn't a bad player on that surface by any means. Agassi took advantage of an older Mac and weak minded Goran to win Wimbledon, but he won it nevertheless. And Lendl was r/u at Wimbledon twice, and won Eastbourne by destroying his major competition. In fact, I thought Lendl finally had Wimbledon won in 1990.

Pete's one of my 3 favorite players of all time. But his clay court record comes up shy of those men's records on their worst respective worst surfaces.

I think Laver's the GOAT because of his 2 complete grand slams, and because of his record on his weakest surface.

I think it might be Federer. Remember he is very unlucky to be in the era of arguably the greatest clay courter ever. In addition to being arguably the greatest clay court ever this guy is also a poor matchup for Federer in general, and Federer has a mental block against this guy. Add that all up and he has a tougher hurdle to win the French then anyone in history who is not the #1 clay courter of their time.

Lendl made 2 finals and 5 semis at Wimbledon. Compare this to others overlapping his era - better than Borg @ US Open, Wilander/Courier @ Wimbledon, Mac/Connors/Becker/Edberg/Sampras @ French. Of course Agassi won Wimbledon but for consistency I don't think he reach the semis 7 times.
Nadal and Federer have not finished their careers but Fed looks able to overtake this position on clay.
Consider the standard Lendl reached in the 1989 sf vs Becker - that could have won him the title in 87 vs Cash.
Taking nothing away form Sampras but I think Lendl could have won a Wimbledon final vs. Courier or Pioline.

Oh yes I nearly forgot - back when the Australian was played on grass Lendl reached the final once (1983) and semis twice (in 85 & 87).
So he reached a total of 10 grand slam semifinals on grass, going on to the final 3 times.
Not bad for your worst surface!
PS Federer had the most votes. I agree he is a great clay courter who would win if Nadal was not there - but he has not yet achieved the stats of Lendl on grass.

Lendl on grass or Borg on fast American hardcourts. Laver was nothing special on red clay. His one French Open was a gargantuan feat.

Federer shouldn't even be in the conversation. He's picking up some finals appearances in a weak clay era - he wouldn't be doing this in a deeper one.

Lendl was at times great on grass. I don't know what happened to him in those two Wimbledon finals. The loss to Becker is understandable. The defeat to Cash (and the manner in which) is bizzarre.

1. Lendl on grass.
2. Borg on hard.
3. Federer on clay.

Lendl's loss to Cash was even more forced than his loss to Becker, because of how Cash played that day. Watch the match. I can't think of anyone who could have clearly beaten him the way he played that match.

Federer would keep up pretty well with any past players on any surface, and if Nadal hadn't been around on clay the last few years, clay may not even be considered Federer's "weakest" surface.